I don't think anyone has argued against civil unions where SS couples are granted all the same rights and privileges as "married" couples. To me, that's a pretty big compromise. However, for whatever reason, that doesn't seem good enough. It's a different situation and a different term is being used to describe their union.

Do you know why "civil union" is not good enough?

Because it isn't the same thing legally.

And if it was?

I don't know. Would you be ok if you weren't allowed to marry but you could have a civil union?

I compare it to this: You walk into an eatery and order a "Hamburger and fries". They say "We call it a Beefburger and Spuds but it's the same thing." You throw a fit and eventually walk out. Make sense?

Yes, I get your argument. Except when it gets spun as "yea, it's the same thing, so call it a hamburger and fries and make the gay community happy" there's major resistance. Which means it isn't the same thing.

IF it was the same thing except with a different term, what's the problem?

I actually know but that's why the gay community is getting the pushback.

It's quibbling over a term. When a kid screams for a toy that the parent was going to buy anyway, that parent needs a punch in the gut for buying it at that very moment. You don't reward "bad" behavior because it conditions the child to believe that's the way to get something. Applying it to this, you don't oil the squeaky wheel because it will only squeak again over something else just as meaningless.

I don't think anyone has argued against civil unions where SS couples are granted all the same rights and privileges as "married" couples. To me, that's a pretty big compromise. However, for whatever reason, that doesn't seem good enough. It's a different situation and a different term is being used to describe their union.

Do you know why "civil union" is not good enough?

Because it isn't the same thing legally.

And if it was?

I don't know. Would you be ok if you weren't allowed to marry but you could have a civil union?

I compare it to this: You walk into an eatery and order a "Hamburger and fries". They say "We call it a Beefburger and Spuds but it's the same thing." You throw a fit and eventually walk out. Make sense?

Yes, I get your argument. Except when it gets spun as "yea, it's the same thing, so call it a hamburger and fries and make the gay community happy" there's major resistance. Which means it isn't the same thing.

IF it was the same thing except with a different term, what's the problem?

I actually know but that's why the gay community is getting the pushback.

It's quibbling over a term. When a kid screams for a toy that the parent was going to buy anyway, that parent needs a punch in the gut for buying it at that very moment. You don't reward "bad" behavior because it conditions the child to believe that's the way to get something. Applying it to this, you don't oil the squeaky wheel because it will only squeak again over something else just as meaningless.

There are people like tec who would be the parent who never intends on buying the toy for their kid. I don't think the analogy is accurate. There are reasons given to deny gay marriage. I disagree with the reasons. This isn't a situation of "oh my god gays would you just shut the hell up. no, now you can't get married."

Are you saying that the gay community could have the same legal rights in terms of marriage/civil unions, but because they're insisting on calling it "marriage" that they don't get that? I'm just trying to understand your analogy correctly.

I don't think anyone has argued against civil unions where SS couples are granted all the same rights and privileges as "married" couples. To me, that's a pretty big compromise. However, for whatever reason, that doesn't seem good enough. It's a different situation and a different term is being used to describe their union.

Do you know why "civil union" is not good enough?

Because it isn't the same thing legally.

And if it was?

I don't know. Would you be ok if you weren't allowed to marry but you could have a civil union?

Are you saying that the gay community could have the same legal rights in terms of marriage/civil unions, but because they're insisting on calling it "marriage" that they don't get that? I'm just trying to understand your analogy correctly.

Yes. I'm saying a civil union would be the exact same as marriage. Just a different term.

I think that would make the tecs/bizs of the world happy. And should make the burnsylucks happy.

Are you saying that the gay community could have the same legal rights in terms of marriage/civil unions, but because they're insisting on calling it "marriage" that they don't get that? I'm just trying to understand your analogy correctly.

I think the implication here is that it may be better to get 99% of what you're asking for (all the rights and privileges, just not the term "marriage") than to get shot down completely in a holy war fighting for that final 1%.

Which is another thing that I've been saying . . . gays are fighting the wrong battle. Equal rights and privilges would be a lot easier to attain under the umbrella of a civil union. Fighting for the word "marriage" incites all the emotion from the opposition.

I don't think anyone has argued against civil unions where SS couples are granted all the same rights and privileges as "married" couples. To me, that's a pretty big compromise. However, for whatever reason, that doesn't seem good enough. It's a different situation and a different term is being used to describe their union.

Do you know why "civil union" is not good enough?

Because it isn't the same thing legally.

And if it was?

I don't know. Would you be ok if you weren't allowed to marry but you could have a civil union?

Sure. Same thing, right?

If its the same thing, why not call it marriage?

To make the "traditional marriage" people happy.

Seems to me that everyone would get what they want. And the definition of a word simply remains unchanged.

Are you saying that the gay community could have the same legal rights in terms of marriage/civil unions, but because they're insisting on calling it "marriage" that they don't get that? I'm just trying to understand your analogy correctly.

Yes. I'm saying a civil union would be the exact same as marriage. Just a different term.

I think that would make the tecs/bizs of the world happy. And should make the burnsylucks happy.

Why is that a bad thing?

That might be true. But I would guess it's not; I don't think lawmakers, etc are holding back because the gay community want it called marriage. And we discussed this, it wouldn't make the burnsylucks and the gay community as happy as they could be. They'd still be fighting for marriage.

Are you saying that the gay community could have the same legal rights in terms of marriage/civil unions, but because they're insisting on calling it "marriage" that they don't get that? I'm just trying to understand your analogy correctly.

Yes. I'm saying a civil union would be the exact same as marriage. Just a different term.

I think that would make the tecs/bizs of the world happy. And should make the burnsylucks happy.

Why is that a bad thing?

That might be true. But I would guess it's not; I don't think lawmakers, etc are holding back because the gay community want it called marriage. And we discussed this, it wouldn't make the burnsylucks and the gay community as happy as they could be. They'd still be fighting for marriage.

Wouldn't that be as silly as walking out of diner, still hungry, because they called your hamburger a "beefburger"?